Responses to the Reviewer #3’s comments:
Ln 40-53 - there citation of previous work is minimal in this part of the draft m/s and I think it needs to expanded and especially to include papers from beyond China.
Response: Thank you for your comments. According to your suggestion, we have expanded on the previous literature, especially the literature outside of China (Page 2-3, Line 40-53).
ln 54-62 - this paragraph touches upon some important issues but lacks detail and thorough discussion of rainfall related matters. Rainfall totals, intensity, distribution relative to the cropping calendar and associated ground cover are all important, as are back to back rain days with significant totals. Changes in these rainfall parameters in conjunction with changing weather patterns or climate change are also important.
Response: Thank you for your comments. We discussed in more detail and thorough the effects of rainfall on soil erosion, including rainfall, rainfall intensity, land management practices, and extreme rainfall associated with climate patterns (Page 3, Line 57-66).
ln 81-90 - these lines do not really convince me of the true novelty of the research and I think this really challenges whether this paper should progress more in HP. I am sure that the journal wishes to publish truly novel and progressive science. I think the findings of this study simply confirm what has been known for a long time.
Response: Thank you for your comments. In this study, the shortcomings of previous artificial simulated rainfall experiments were overcome, the influence factors were continuous variables, and the functional relationship of slope hydrological process was established by using structural equation model. And the threshold interval of vegetation coverage was obtained quantitatively (Page 5, Line 94-97; 107-109).
ln 90-93 - no proper research objectives and hypotheses are presented - this must be corrected.
Response: Thank you for your comments. We added research hypotheses and objectives in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 5-6, Line 106-114).
ln 103-121 - scant detail is provided the data collection methods and the associated uncertainties. Scant detail is also provided on the rules used to remove erroneous data.
Response: Thank you for your comments. We added data collection methods and error data deletion rules (Page 7, Line 133-139).
Discussion - the order of the subsections is not consistent with earlier parts of the draft m/s wherein rainfall factors are introduced/discussed first, followed by vegetation factors. I suggest re-ordering subsections in the Discussion section.
Response: Thank you for your comments. We reordered the subsections of the discussion section, reordering the 4.1 and 4.2 sections (Page 13-16, Line 276-348).
Discussion - ln 227-230 - I do feel that this response is not already well known and existing research should therefore be cited here. The use of citations for previous work is extremely scant throughout the Discussion.
Response: Thank you for your comments. We have added references to previous work and discussed this part of the results in depth (Page 15, Line 315-322).
Discussion - ln 242-249 - again the use of citations is very scant and I do not feel that these results are novel or ground breaking.
Response: Thank you for your comments. According to your suggestion, we added references and discussed this section in more depth (Page 16, Line 335-343).
Discussion - ln 284-286 - again there is much existing international literature already reporting the importance of sediment-associated nutrient loss and yet it is not cited here. This result is not novel or ground breaking.
Response: Thank you for your comments. We added internationally important literature and added discussion of nutrient loss related to sediments (Page 16-17, Line 350-358).
Discussion - ln 309-311 - this is a a simplification - as soil becomes saturated and saturation excess overland flow develops, the impact of raindrops is reduced due to the protective effect of the runoff. As a result, erosion is then driven by alternative processes such as slaking or differential swelling of soil aggregates and is therefore controlled by aggregate stability etc.
Response: Thank you for your comments. According to your suggestion, we use the stability of soil aggregates for the explanation (Page 18, Line381-383).
Dicussion - it is unacceptable for this section to not include a subsection discussing the main limitations of the plot scale work - readers need this type of discussion to help them form a more informed opinion as to the value of the research and the findings.
Response: Thank you for your comments. Based on your suggestion, we had a supplementary discussion on the scale effect of erosion and point out the limitations of the results at the plot scale of this study (Page 18-19, Line 397-401).
Discussion - as this is plot scale work I would also expect to see a subsection discussing the wider implications of the experimental/SEM work - what area do the results potentially relate to in China for example?
Response: Thank you for your comments. We added a subsection to extend this study to provide a basis for decisions on vegetation restoration and soil erosion (Page 19, Line 401-408).
Conclusion - I would expect to see this section point to future research needs.
Response: Thank you for your comments. We added the need for future research (Page 20, Line 426-428).
Graphical abstract - I do not like to see so much test in these. Please edit.
Response: Thank you for your comments. We reduced the content of the graphical abstract.